The Prince - Niccolò Machiavelli

I am not clear if this text is meant as a guide for rulers or if it is meant as merely an accurate reflection of what successful rulers have done in the past in order to maintain their power.  Perhaps a little of both?  What is most fascinating is how the text accurately reflects many of today's rulers system of governance many, many years later.  What a complete contrast to Mencius' ways of governing!  I have to say that Mencius' philosophy is much dearer to my heart than Machiavelli's!  It seems to me that the ends justify the means, no many how unethical the means are.

On keeping promises/being true to the prince's word (ch. 18):
While Machiavelli advocates keeping to one's word, he has no qualms with deception by any means necessary either.  I am thinking to George Orwell's 1984 in government censorship and doublespeak - a definite form of deception.  And of course, how can I not think of Bush, Powell, Rice, Cheney and their cronies in their deceptions about the Iraq war and (the lack of) weapons of mass destructions and their justifications of torture.  I am perpetually amazed that they are free men and that not more people see through their deception.  Perhaps deception and propaganda advocated by Machiavelli is just that powerful...

Ditto for the ch. 15 on virtues.  Be virtuous but abandon it when necessary - wow.  Two faced, in other words.  For this, I am reminded of Obama.  He was the 'new hope' for America.  People cried when he won the election.  He gets incorrectly labeled as a socialist which he is most absolutely not!  Being a cynic, I never had hopes in him or hope of change through government.  He was seen and is still seen as the kind and nice president.  Somehow, the fact that he is leading wars and bombing South Asia and the Middle East seems to have escaped people's consciousness.  The fact that more people have been deported from the USA since his presidency also seems to have lost in all the 'hope' message.  I haven't heard "Yes, we can" since he won, have you?

I do not disagree with the author's premise that humans are generally self-interested creatures but I do also believe in humanity, that we also have the ability to think about others, not just ourselves.  Of course, we put ourselves first, out of self-preservation but think of the past examples of goodness of humanity (people sharing the one loave of bread with others because they could not bear to not do so in war, disasters, etc., people saving human lives, risking their lives doing do (e.g. Rwanda genocide, Holocaust).

Afterclass thoughts: I confess that I was viewing this book through my current day lens.  I understand that Italy was in turmoil but can unity and order be reached by the methods advocated by Machiavelli?  I don't know.  I don't know what I would do if I was a prince and my kingdom was being invaded.  My questions are more of (1) What gives anyone a right to rule over others?  Especially with cruelty (if necesary) - I mean, what does that mean???  Who determines when cruelty is necessary?  Who and how many persons get to determine the fate of an entire people  and area?  Why should there be kingdoms at all?  How would the actions of a prince as advocated by Machiavelli be different from that of a dictator's? Machiavelli was an 'advisor'.  I liked what Will said in class.  Advisors' talk is cheap in that they never have to go out to battle.  Perhaps they may think differently if they did.